The Latin Scot

I am still having this problem, 9:40 pm Pacific Standard Time

I'm sorry that you feel so grief stricken.  Please know that, many many of us are still here, toiling away at delivering the same amazing program to all who wish to participate - along with millions of our brothers and sisters across the worldwide Scouting movement.

The same program! Ha. The program is dying, and all the talk in the world won't change that. You can claim to be delivering the "same amazing program,", but it isn't that now, is it? That program is dead. If only the world could all see that.

Well, good bye Scouting. I doubt the LDS Church will stay in the program much longer.

This is the most tragic death-knell I have ever imagined possible. To say good bye to the Boy Scout of America, after more than 100 years of success, is truly, truly tragic. I can't even express how heartbroken I am. 

I will miss this program. I can't even express my grief.

I am a smaller guy, and so not all of my patches fit on my sleeve above the cuff. After the council strip, veteran unit bar, troop numerals, and position patch, there was just barely enough room at the edge of the sleeve to squeeze on my trained patch. I am a pretty fine tailor so I had the others all lined up as neatly and closely as could be, but there just wasn't room above the cuff for that last item, so right on the cuff my trained patch lies, with maybe a few centimeters between the bottom of it and the edge of the sleeve. All of the patches run right up against each other, with no space whatsoever between them.

It's not aesthetically pleasing, especially for a guy like me with snobbish sartorial sensitivities AND a mild case of uniform perfectionism, but I have to remember that it's not about looks - it's about good uniforming. So I am willing to sacrifice what looks good for what is right, and it sets the right example for the boys while teaching myself the right lesson. 

As I related on another thread some time back, my BALOO training was, for all intents and purposes, awful. Just, absolutely the worst. What was supposed to be an "all day session of the most fun training you'll ever have!" (as the syllabus claimed) actually consisted of 90 minutes of some old cynical Scouter complaining about how he didn't want to teach the course in the first place, then showing some irrelevant powerpoint slides on camping gear he liked, a handout with long-outdated BSA policies (like, from the 80's before I was even born), and then the signing of our cards to indicate we had been "trained." It was one of the most excruciatingly boring and useless training sessions I have ever had the misfortune of enduring - and I usually love training meetings! I ended up downloading the course materials so that I could train myself, but it was abysmal.

I ended up writing a detailed, polite yet rather blunt review and critique of the trainer, his "course materials," and whole fiasco, and sent it to the Council for review - since this was offered at our yearly University of Scouting training event, which is otherwise a really wonderful program, I felt they needed to be aware of this massive blight on their course offerings. As a result, I notice that this year they no longer offer BALOO at the event, but instead have it calendared as a designated, all-day, course-specific activity at our nearest Scout Camp later this month. I hope that maybe my input contributed to waking them up to the situation so that they felt prompted to reassess how they ran the course. But at any rate, it seems upcoming trainees will have a far better experience than I did. 

@@qwazse I appreciate your measured response and your ability to both understand and articulate both sides of the issue. Thank you for that post.

I must correct the false information posted here before it explodes into false rumors and spreads beyond this thread. 

I just saw a copy of the newest batch of youth applications.  I quote:

 

Joining Requirements

 

Cub Scout Pack

Pack membership is open to youth in kindergarten through fifth grade...

 

Boy Scout Troop

Children can be Scouts if they have completed ....

 

** It no longer says boys or your son..   I think national already has a plan underway.

 
Clearly you did not read the application very carefully. Or you have misquoted it, though why I can only imagine. 

My friends, I have in front of me a youth application, picked up a few hours ago from my regional Scout Service Center. It is the latest and most current application to come from the BSA. Under the heading "CUB SCOUT PACK," on the second page inside, it says "Pack membership is open to boys." No further comment. Under "BOY SCOUT TROOP/VARSITY TEAM," it says under the heading Boy Scout Troop "Your son can be a Scout if he has completed ... et cetera, while under Varsity Team is says "Varsity Scouting - A male youth must be at least 14 years of age and not yet 18." Both are explicit. There is no room for misunderstanding or re-interpretation.

To differentiate those programs from a program that actually is co-ed, it reads under the heading "VENTURING CREW/SEA SCOUT SHIP (COEDUCATIONAL)" (for emphasis I am sure) "Venturing and Sea Scouting are for young men and women at least 13 years old ..." et cetera.

All are very clear. There has been no change to this application. I called my regional offices to confirm as an added measure of certification to my research. They confirmed that there is no "newer application," and that there is no plan to open either Boy Scouting or Cub Scouting to girls at this time.

To spread the false rumor that the application is accepting girls is unwise and unwarranted. Why would National secretly try to smuggle such a massive change into the program under our noses? Would they really be so idiotic as to think they could slip in such a bombshell without anybody noticing? Of course not. If they ever did make such a decision it would come with trumpets blaring and fanfares and all kinds of nonsense. They wouldn't bury clues in the applications as though this was some second-rate mystery for the members to find and try to solve.

I INTENSELY oppose the first and third suggestions. I am confused by the second one, though. When you say "the creation of a parallel program," isn't that exactly what groups like the Girl Scouts or the Campfire Girls are doing? Why expect the BSA to come up with such a thing when there are plenty of other programs doing just that?  People say "the Girl Scouts won't change," and so they leave them alone. But when the Boy Scouts don't change, NO! We much MAKE them change! Why then afflict the Boy Scouts instead of accepting what our program is, like you seem content to do with the Girl Scouts? It's a double-standard, and it reeks of ulterior agendas. 

I grow weary of people who basically want to take advantage of a respected program like the Boy Scouts of America, and change it into what they want just to meet their own agenda, rather than having the courage and work-ethic to create what they want on their own. If they want a program that offers BSA-like opportunities to girls, great. Create something. Don't demand that the BSA alienate thousands, or even millions, of faithful participants just so that they can get what they want without all the work. 

They want the BSA's resources, its properties, its opportunities, the respect it has spent 107 years cultivating, the legacy it has worked so hard to build - but at the cost of changing the fundamental character of the organization. And that character is a program built to help mold young boys into fine, honorable, hard-working men who will contribute to our countries citizenry in meaningful ways. The WAY that it does so has been honed over the years to be exactly what boys need. It is NOT what girls need. Girls are different than boys. They develop differently; they experience the world differently; they have their own powerful gifts and sensibilities that deserve to be cultivated with the same attention and nourishment and nurturing that the boys get in the BSA - but the BSA does not cultivate the gifts of girls to the extent they need and deserve. Just because a girl might love the same activities as a Boy Scout does not mean that the Boy Scout program will nurture her growth into a young woman to her fullest potential. To force the program to accept girls would necessary and unavoidably compel it to make fundamental changes in how it is run, how it is organized, and how it operates, and those changes would lessen the influence on the boys while failing to provide enough of the right influence for the girls.

I understand if others feel differently, but I have yet to have placed in front of me one single argument that could make sense of such a transformation of the program to me. It is a perilous idea, and I care too much about the youth of today to possibly contemplate it. As an educator, a child development specialist, an uncle, a Scouter, and a friend of who-knows-how-many young people, I cannot condone such a move. 

I actually feel just as uncomfortable with the idea of Cub Scouts going co-ed as I do with the Boy Scouts considering the same. They are far younger and more impressionable at that age, and for them to be raised in a setting where we are basically telling them that there is no difference between the two sexes is, to me, highly objectionable.

That said, I don't believe it is wise nor productive to waste time speculating on whether or not it is going to happen. As of right now, it has not, and any local units doing so, do so against official BSA policy. But I know that I would not allow any girls to join my group, and if a parent were to ask, I would politely inform them that the Cub Scouts is a program for boys, and that I cannot accept their daughter as a member. But I would also suggest to them one of the MANY alternative programs that are available for girls which wouldn't require a 100-year-old program to change the fundamental nature of its organization, one that isn't even designed to fully meet the needs of girls anyway. 

I notice that in ALL of the examples you provide, it either states simply that the unit leader gives information for a merit badge counselor or recommends the name of one to the Scouts. In NO instance does it say that the unit leader can deny a boy the right to work with a different counselor. Yet all of them mention the phrase "district/council approved merit badge counselor," which implies that the power to make that approval decision lies in their hands, not the unit leaders'.

The Scoutmaster has the power to offer and recommend names, but ultimately he cannot approve or disapprove of a counselor - only the district or counsel wields that kind of authority, as made explicit in the very examples you give. If a boy wishes to use a counselor other that the one suggested by his unit leader, that is his right. Regardless of the unit leader's fears that a parent might be too easy or too hard, it is still outside of his power to prohibit his Scouts from working with them on merit badges. If he were to try to invoke such a privilege, the boy could easily dispute it at the district or council level, since they are the ones with the power to decide - and they are not likely to cede that power to the unit level except in rare and unusual cases. 

It bears repeating and should be noted that if you read the Advancement Guide at 7.0.1.4 it states emphatically

"Approved counselors may work with and pass any member, including their own son, ward, or relative. Nevertheless, we often teach young people the importance of broadening horizons. Scouts meeting with counselors beyond their families and beyond even their own units are doing that. They will benefit from the perspectives of many “teachers†and will learn more as a result. They should be encouraged to reach out."

So for unit leaders to impose limits on their Scouts, stating that they can't receive a merit badge from their parents when they are council-approved counselors, seems to go against what is stated in the official materials. They may "encourage them to reach out," and "teach the importance of broadening horizons" - but they can't compel them to do so. Regardless of the lessons we want to teach the boys (which are indeed good and important lessons), technically it's not in their power to insist such. And I am always wary of Scoutmasters or advancement chairs who power-play by placing limits like that on their Scouts. I don't feel it's their place to make such rules. The Advancement Guide is clear: "Approved counselors may work with and pass ANY member" (my emphasis). There is no caveat to that. In my humble opinion (others may disagree), leaders should abide by that counsel as much as is possible and reasonable, even while teaching and guiding their Scouts towards a broader point of view.

My pleasure! That's what the boards are for. 

Because of the schedules of my families, and the fact that my Ward (= local congregation) has a designated night of the week to use the local meeting house, I hold my Webelos meetings every Tuesday at 7, excepting weeks when we have Pack Meeting. This is later than I would like, but since it's the same time and place as all the Boy Scout, Young Women, and adult activities, it means that many families are already there anyway, so it's not much hassle to get the kids there. It's late, yeah, but there's nothing stopping us from having a Saturday event here or there as long as we communicate that to the families (more on that in a bit).

A key factor to ensuring attendance, however, is consistency. We ALWAYS meet Tuesdays at 7 (except when we have Pack Meeting, which is ALWAYS the third Thursday of the month). I almost never change that, and so it has become an established routine that parents never have to ask about, never have to question, and never have to doubt. It's ALWAYS Tuesdays at 7. Because I have made it so dependable, my families feel more confident sending their kids in every week, because they know that unless something big happens, Webelos is Tuesdays at 7 (except when we have Pack Meeting, which is ALWAYS the third Thursday of the month). See how nice and dependable that is? Parents love that.

And what about when something big DOES happen? Halloween is on a Tuesday this year. The eclipse was on a Monday. Sometimes our weekly activity is a Saturday hike. What then?

COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE!!!

I have all my parents e-mails and phone numbers - for both parents where that is possible. Any time I know something is going to change, I let them know the week before with a note sent home with every boy, then again with an e-mail a few days before hand. I send another e-mail letting them know about the change the night before (and a text to those who don't have e-mail), then the morning of I call or leave a message to each family. In every case, I explain the reason for the scheduling change, and give the information for any alternative activity if applicable. During my first few months I worried that my parents would be sick of hearing from me (sometimes I still worry that!), but they have actually been overwhelmingly grateful for the near-torrent of updates I send every week - parents want to know what's going on with their kids! These people have lives, so the easier we make it for them to live them, the more willing they are to help out and  get their kids to my activities. 

Mind you, I don't only communicate with them when there is a change coming - I send weekly e-mails discussing upcoming events and what we are working on each meeting, I have a hard-copy monthly newsletter that goes home with each boy at the start of every month, I talk with them personally whenever they drop off or pick up their kids - I try to make "Den Leader" a family role. And it works! Parents are more than willing to step in if needed because they can see, almost daily, how hard we are working to deliver a good program. They also have time to plan opportunities to get involved since our meeting times are so reliable, and changes are only made with plenty of notice. There's a sense of security that comes with being informed about what's going on by caring leaders. So whether your group chooses to meet on Saturdays at 10 am or Thursdays at 7:30 pm, the important thing is that you establish a routine, and keep your communication as open and frequent as possible - and that you take the time to get to know your families. If you can do those three simple things, you'll find attendance is relatively easy to manage.  

Hope this helps!

Absolutely; it's not "recommended," per se, but its absolutely permissible. Here's the link: 

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/11/19/merit-badge-counselors/

Just as an added note, the blog at scoutingmagazine.org, "Ask Brian" is one of the best sources for information out there. Many of my questions have been answered after a quick sweep of his posts. Just like searching here! Hope this is helpful. 

A good question I always had was when is it appropriate to wear these hats?   

 

Weekly Troop meetings?  COH? Only when hiking and carrying your hiking stick?  Sitting around at camp?  To the grocery?

I wear mine whenever I am in uniform, excepting of course places where it would be deemed in appropriate or unsuited to the activity (places of worship, eating places, any place my grandmother is around, etc.). But I look for opportunities to have it on, not for the times when I have to take it off. 

Got it, sorry if it sounded like I was attacking your post - I was just surprised and eager to get more information. Might I ask please, from whom did the e-mail come? Was it an official BSA message? It's just such a big change that I would have thought they would make a bigger deal of it, lol.

In answer to @@qwazse's question, the Church has historically had a very large presence at World Jamborees, although not as much has been made of them as in decades past - National, yes, World, not so much. Now, @@swcline is correct in that, where there are co-ed Scouting activities happening, the segregation between boys and girls has of course been respected. Yet while that may be true, such camping issues have not been program-wide, and are still relatively isolated situations (and don't get me started on the teen dating frenzy that is EFY, @@swcline. I only recently graduated from BYU and had to put up with those crazy crowds every summer  ). But it is also true that those kinds of issues really are secondary to the real problem, and I should have been clearer on that point. The primary potential for concern is neither logistical nor practical at its core. The primary dilemma with co-ed Scouting would be the ideological conflict, the changing of a program that has been centered on the development of young men into some kind of gender-neutral activity club that would be forced to change its very nature towards an end that would neither serve boys nor girls effectively. Others may not find that to be a problem, and that is of course their privilege, but the Church would not countenance such a massive change lightly. It clashes with too many of our central beliefs, and the with way that we raise and instruct our growing young men and women.

MIND YOU, I am not saying that the Church would automatically jump ship if such a change were to be made, and to assume that it would would be most unwise. But that kind of huge alteration to the program would certainly generate serious discussions which could very easily lead to such a move. But again, until or unless it happens, speculation is, as in most cases, unproductive. More often than not it leads to paranoia rather than preparedness.

Better to focus on the Now than on the Could Be. The Church is at present deeply entrenched in the Cub Scout and Boy Scout programs. So let's focus more on cultivating the fruits of our cooperation, rather than sowing any distressing seeds of doubt.  

Being a Webelos leader gives me an advantage. I just ask parents for any old Cub Scout uniform items as the boys move up to the tan/olive uniform, and pass them down to any boys who need them. Living in an affluent area pocketed by a few low-income neighborhoods, the balance between needs and donations has maintained a remarkable equilibrium. 

Well! This will be a huge, but not entirely surprising, change to the organization then. I am sure they will announce it in the next few days if this is really direction they are taking.

The problem is the MASSIVE list of ramifications that would come of making a program like the BSA into ... what? The BGSA? Just the "SA?" Even if the Church simply continued to charter all-boy units, there would be all kinds of issues with co-ed troops which the Church could not avoid. As a Church we prioritize the family, and we believe that gender is a divine and eternal part of our natures - as a result, we believe strongly that boys are different from girls. By making the BSA co-ed, it would be making a statement that boys and girls are to some extent the same, and that the needs of one are no different than the needs of the other, as though they were interchangeable. This would be a philosophy that we could not support - and that's only the fundamental, ideological issue. 

Mind you, we are deeply entrenched in every aspect of Scouting, from Camporees to Jamborees, from summer camps to local events. The complications at these kind of events would encompass everything from showering arrangements to inter-troop activities to tenting/campsite situations to patrol competitions, ALL of which would suddenly include girls. Which makes it difficult for those of a faith that believes in a sacred difference between the two sexes.

Whether or not you agree with our doctrines, you can't deny that such a massive issue would pose huge logistical, ideological, and practical difficulties to a religion that believes so strongly in doing it Duty to God. Rather than try to navigate such potentially rough waters, it would be FAR easier for the Church at such a point to simply let Scouting be and initiate its own activities program. We have the tools and the organizational structure in place to do so with relative ease if absolutely needed - members in the 100+ other countries of the Church already have their own programs, so we would only need to adopt the same structure in place of Scouting. But the hope is the we don't ever have to. If Scouting will simply hold to the values it has always embraced, which align perfectly with the aims and desires of the Church and have for 100 years, then there is no problem. We love Scouting, we WANT Scouting - but we put the development and well-being of our young men even before loyalty to this program. As the Scout Oath itself makes clear, we put our Duty to God first. We can only hope that nothing happens within the BSA 's organization which would pit that Duty against our love for and loyalty to the Boy Scouts of America. As of now, thank goodness, no such thing has transpired, and we happily continue to ensconce our young men in the Scouting program for the time being. 

I hope this makes it somewhat clearer to understand; I know that we all see the religions of others "as through a glass, dimly," but I sincerely wish for you all to see where we are coming from with regards to this issue. 

I don't understand the nature of this post ... are you pointing out the decision of the LDS Church to pull out of the Varsity and Venturing programs? Because that happened all the way back in May, effective January 1st of next year, but still old news at this point (which has been discussed almost to wit's end).

Or, is this news about the Varsity program itself coming to an end? If that is the case, can you please give us a source for this information? I have checked every official site I can find and there is no mention of this from what I can tell. Would you please share where you got this news?

@@krikkitbot makes a good point. There are some LDS members (as with in all faiths) who are not fully supportive of the Scouting program (I pity their short-sightedness). So as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in good standing, with first-hand communication from Church leadership, let me be EXPLICITLY CLEAR on one point.

You guys ready? 

THE CHURCH IS NOT LEAVING SCOUTING.

THOSE OF THE LDS FAITH ARE NOT DROPPING THE SCOUTING PROGRAM.

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS HAS NO PLANS TO SEVER ITS TIES WITH THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA.

I could go on. But do you see my point? I say this after long conversations with many Church leaders at the highest levels (it's nice to have good connections). But more than that, why should the church leave? Let's clarify a few points for those stubborn people who like to stir things up with false rumors, and quash them before they continue to permeate these lovely forums.

1. GIrls in the BSA - as @@swcline pointed out, there are of course instances where groups of girls, who happen to be LDS, have started their own Venturing posts. But this is purely done as individual agents, not endorsed by the Church or incorporated into the official Young Women's programs. The Church has never chartered young women in any of Scouting's programs, and while some individuals or groups, who happen to be LDS, may do so on their on dime, they are NOT affiliated with the Church in any official way, and so they are irrelevant to this topic. 

The Church does not endorse Scouting for girls or young women, and never has.

2. The pull-out from Varsity and Venturing - this was NOT A POLITICAL MOVE - I don't know how much more I can stress this. The Church pulled out of these programs because, frankly, we weren't running them very well, and it was a drain of resources and leadership that wasn't meeting the objectives of either program. It had nothing to do with politics. Church leaders have explained this to us over and again in the past few weeks, but those outside the Church don't get to hear it as often, so as an LDS leader, let me make it clear the choice was based on operations, not politics. Our Varsity and Venturing programs were largely inert or ineffective. We are GREAT with the Boy Scout program, but once the boys turned 14 they entered a program that their leaders didn't understand and weren't using very well, right at the age when they are starting high school and have their attentions pulled in all different directions. So we cut those two programs because we didn't run them very well! 

The Church did not pull out of those programs for any reason other than our own inability to effectively use them! No politics were involved!!!

As for the Cub Scout and Boy Scout programs, why on Earth should we drop them when clearly we are still running them, and exceptionally well I might add? For proof, look at the 100+ years of close and deep partnership between the Church and the BSA (there's even a whole book about it at the Scout Store, "A Century of Honor"). Or look at the huge number of Eagle Scouts the Church produces, or the MASSIVE contingent of LDS Scouts just at this last Jamboree, where one of our Senior Apostles, Jeffrey R. Holland (an Eagle Scout), addressed more than 2,100 Boy Scouts to talk about how much the Church loves the Scouting program (this was only weeks ago, mind you). I mean, our Church President, Thomas S. Monson, has earned both the Silver Buffalo and the Bronze Wolf - we are dedicated to this program!

Our ties to Scouting are full of history and brotherhood. Even with the changes the BSA has been making, we have stuck with them. Now, if the BSA were to do something INCREDIBLY foolish, like change to co-ed programming, then there might be cause to reconsider our close relationship. But for now, DO NOT SPREAD THE MYTH THAT THE LDS CHURCH IS LEAVING SCOUTING. It is exactly that - a myth. Anybody who claims otherwise is a trouble-making meddler looking to stir the pot - don't listen to them! We love Scouting, and will stick with it until they give us a solid reason not to. 

Welcome to the boards, and commendations for accepting such a big job! You sound like you're prepared to do a great job with it; the boys will be lucky to have you! Good luck, and remember to ask any questions you may have here - I have received all kinds of help from the lovely folks here!

I got mine for my 33rd birthday last December. It was a gift from some of the boys in my den, and I LOVE it! And mind you I am young-looking - I still get mistaken for an older Scout or Venturer. OFTEN. 

@@qwazse I cannot speak much for how things are operated in Canada except that they do not register girls in their units, nor will they. Their program is under review, and more information about their program is likely to be forthcoming.

@@HelpfulTracks Utah is actually home to no less than 4 councils, and they are among the largest and most active in the BSA. There are also huge councils in other areas with large LDS populations, such as California, Idaho, Arizona, and Wyoming. But it is a mistake to think that the Church only looks at what goes on in Utah. We are a global Church, with almost 16 million members in more than 160 countries, and every one of them matters. Thanks to meticulous organization of leadership, the young people in Canada receive as much attention as the members in Venezuela or Mongolia or Nigeria or the Ukraine. So you can be sure that the Scouts in Canada are getting all the attention they deserve in this regard.

Your facts are mistaken about the Venturing program - the Church has never at any point chartered or endorsed Venturing units for girls. We have our own programs for girls and young women that we have run for more than 120 years, so we have never had any need to include them in any of Scouting's programs.

If, however, Scouting were to cave to popular pressure and make their core programs (Cub and Boy Scouts) co-ed, it could be one of the last straws for the Church's involvement with Scouting. The Church has been remarkably patient with Scouting's changes up until now. The pull from Varsity and Venturing actually had nothing to do with any changes in Scouting, but rather happened because local leaders weren't implementing the programs correctly and so we were wasting resources on programs that weren't being properly used. But we have kept Boy Scout and Cub Scouts because they fit with our needs and ideals. If they were to collapse their values and ultimately make those programs co-ed, however, then it would be the time to wonder how long the Church would continue with the programs.

@@RememberSchiff The Church will continue to run its Boy Scout troops as before, and boys over 14 who want to continue advancing will simply continue in their own troops. There will be no need for them to transfer to non-LDS troops. If they feel they have had enough Scouting, they they can continue in the Church's new activity programs for young men 14 and up, but to continue advancing, they need only remain in their own troop. No transferring to outside troops will be needed.